[83] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josiah D. Seale)
Fri Apr 20 04:40:07 2001
From: "Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU>
To: "Flaviu I Iepure" <flaviu@mit.edu>,
"Zhelinrentice L Scott" <zlscott@mit.edu>
Cc: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>, <mit-talk@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:43:24 -0400
Message-ID: <BLEJJJDGNEIJGAGOJNHNOEHCCMAA.jdseale@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200104200759.DAA22963@m56-129-20.mit.edu>
>Flaviu I Iepure wrote:
Religious prejudice noted.
-F
--------
No, not necessarily prejudice. That depends on your definition. Sourav and
Zhe are both being consistent with their belief systems, and Zhe has
realized this and is stating such.
Without a higher being, there is no reason to follow morals beyond your own
convenience.
Be nice until killing someone will get you lots of money, and then kill that
person (if you can get away with it). If you do have a higher being that you
are attempting to please, this adds an incentive to do what you think is in
line with this being's nature. Zhe has that incentive, Sourav does not. It
is the responsibility of each person to come to their own conclusions, and
live accordingly.
Why should I "do unto" anyone else what I would want them to "do unto me"?
Stuff for Philosophy nerds
--------------------------
Nietzche came to lots of fun conclusions about morals, sans God. Yay,
Ubermensch.
Michael Martin and others of his ilk have tried to define subjective
Naturalistic metaethics, by saying that morals are just built* into the
universe, but that seems to be pretty damn close to admitting the existence
of a higher power. Besides, why shouldn't I just ignore them?
*not built by anyone or thing in particular, mind you. Just built.
Firth's Ideal Observer Theory states that we should do what we feel an Ideal
Observer would want. In other words, pretend that there's a God, and live
accordingly.
Again, I ask: Why? If I receive no benefit from doing such, why should I?
Sourav and Presley are doing the respectable thing in following their
systems to their logical conclusions. I am guessing that it would not make
sense for Sourav to do business with a liar, since he might be lied to.
However, it would make sense for Sourav to lie to close a deal, if he were
sure that no one would find out.
What it comes down to is making a cost/benefit analysis of following one's
(ostensibly evolution-instilled) morals.
